(April 8, 2025 at 11:58 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: My 'bias' is the result of 'the astonishingly narrow parameters of certain characteristics of the universe, and that if they altered even a vanishingly small amount, then the carbon life we know of, could not have emerged'.
You seem awfully fixated on carbon-based life. Or humans. Or life as we know it. It reveals your bias since none of those are necessary. Once you accept the possibility of "life as we don't yet understand it" the odds become much greater. You don't seem to be able to get around your anthropocentric biases here.
Quote:Part of the reason for multiverse is the unlikelihood of one universe having properties for life.
What exactly is the probability? Kindly show your work. When you cube "I have no fucking clue" please remember to carry the zero.
Quote:Its the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a Creator of the universe. What does that leave to cause a universe to exist?
What part of "I don't know?" do you not understand?
Quote:I can say I lack belief in the ability of mindless lifeless forces to unwittingly cause a universe with all the properties and conditions necessary to cause life to exist*? Then claim the burden of proof rests solely with atheists?
No, you'd be fine if you simply ended it there. What you do or don't believe is entirely up to you. It's when you then use your lack of belief in X as proof for Y that we all fall over laughing.
